The War on Terror Is A Fake War!

reply to post by sheepslayer247


The definition of terrorism is every difficult to pin down so for the proposes of any discussion we need to use a definition as set out by the state in this case America’s definition. An army is backed and controlled by the state. State sponsored terrorism is where a terrorist organisation supported by a government such as Libya supplying the IRA or Afghanistan providing a home for Al’Qa’Ida and Iran providing support for Hezbollah. Although the state has some input on the organization, the terrorist group is still operationally independent of the state. Generally speaking an army is a term used to describe the land based defence networks of the state and is operationally dependent on the state. Terrorists may be backed by a sate however they do not fulfil this role.

reply to post by kevinunknown


What do you call it when CIA conduct terrorist acts in other countries? They are part of the government, so isnt that state-sponsored terrorism?

reply to post by Copernicus


No, its state-terrorism, there is a difference. That’s one of the biggest criticisms of defining terrorism because the definition is specific to each state they can define it in such a way as their own groups can conduct terrorist operations and be free from prosecution unless they violate their own state laws. When that happens its state-terrorism. This definition however is as controversial as “terrorism” but in my view when a government breaches its own terrorism legislation it is committing state-terrorism you may find others who disagree with me on that because it is a gray area.

Did you have any specific terrorist attack in mind (don’t say 9/11)

reply to post by kevinunknown


I could bring up specific events, but I wanted to discuss the moral issue of it in general. Are there any good guys in the government agencies / regime groups or is it all a grey area? Sometimes I have to wonder.


[edit on 18-7-2010 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


I think if you were to ask a SAD operative form the CIA or any other operative who may carry out acts of state terrorism they would try to tell you it’s a utilitarian move. Sometimes however this all becomes very gray in their minds they are probably doing it for the greater good and they could be in the long term but we only see the bad. It really does open up the possibilities for everything to go wrong and turn to corruption we could start (or maybe already have) to carry out stat-terrorism not because it is necessary for national security but because it is advantageous economically or politically.

Your views are hardly complex. They are a convoluted patchwork of someone who has no frame of reference for a complex situation. The one thing I would agree on is the idea that there is no "war on terror". A war as we define it in the west requires an enemy with a verifiable command structure and a centralized leadership. The present global situation is completely unlike any movement we have seen before, including the anarchist movement of the 19th century and early 20th century. The anarchist movement did not have the support of national governments and arose primarily out the labor movement. Today's terrorism is worldwide, think global act local could be the motto, and receives substantial support from governments as well as a fund raising apparatus deeply entrenched throughout the Islamic world (And no, that does not mean most Muslims are terrorists). We have yet to formulate a conceptual framework for the situation posed by a worldwide movement with a varied and shifting leadership (and in some cases no leadership at all) which has substantial financial support throughout the world as homegrown wannabe's. We fail to comprehend that the "war on terror" is rooted in a religious/political system that is 1400 years old. Avoiding the facts and confusing the issues doesn't solve the problem.

reply to post by pacific_waters


Your post has left me perplexed, you started by saying that my views were “hardly complex” then that I had no frame of reference for the current situation, there is not frame of reference, so you have one either, you said yourself its unique. I only mentioned the anarchists to describe how the term “war on terror” has been used before not to draw similarities.

Was quite interesting how you said the only thing you agreed with me on was that there is not war on terrorism. So you totally agree with my core argument which I welcome. However you then started to talk about the modern day terrorist and their funding, support and ideology. All very interesting points, each worthy of a multitude of threads but this thread is not about any of that, it’s about how the term “war on terror” is wrong. For the record I actually agree with everything you said about this but I think it would be better in another thread, perhaps you would like to create one and we could discuss your views about terrorism on there, I think we might agree on quite allot.

I think Bin Laden and Suddam Hussein are fakes. I believe that they were created by our government to help carry out war agendas.

reply to post by CheapShotArtist


I here that allot, but i never really see much prove